Regardless of whether filmmakers would actually have painted paper mache lobster consumes in red for b&w movies back in the day or not, the colors in this scene are there because of production design to create a reaction in the Hugo audience more than anything else.

I'm still pretty vague about how I feel with this movie. I don't know wether to celebrate it's obvious disregard for traditional structure or go with my initial feeling, which was unsatisfactory. Also, the 3d was so good it was distracting. Really, it was just too fucking good. Scorsese has always been flashy and I've always love his films for that so I don't have a problem with the way he really thought out all these shots in 3d to make them work in 3d. But damn it was hard to keep track of things when most of the time I was thinking "holy shit that is so cool".

Beyond that, I agree with the comment about the long pauses between dialogues. That surprised me and put me off because it's so weird coming from the Scorsese-Schoonmaker team. I would bet you could trim 20 minutes of this movies with just those pauses. And most of the Sacha Baron Cohen's stuff was superfluous, particularly his coming back as the bad guy at the end. Some of it was not funny at all.

Yet I also share the sentiment and the experience of being about to cry for at least three times when the movie became about cinema itself. The honesty of the whole thing is almost heartbreaking, and I think Kingsley was really good in this performance. Don't know if anyone has read Ebert's review of this movie but his take on how this could be Scorsese's most personal film, almost autobiographical is pretty spot on.

It's a beautiful film to look at and listen to (this is the first of Howard Shore's scores for Marty that stands out for me) and the performances are great. To be honest what I now see as flaws (the weird structure, the "lecture" quality of the film history segments, etc...) may be later seen as wins. But I'm pretty sure a lot of the Baron Cohen and his dog stuff could be left out and no one would miss it. I'm curious as to how kids actually react to it, anyone has seen this with a young kid?

this could be Scorsese's most personal film, almost autobiographical is pretty spot on.

CBS Sunday Morning had a piece on Scorsese this morning and a separate piece on the author of the book. They showed an automaton a lot like the one in the movie and it is actually quite interesting for me to think of how someone would make something like that.

Watched it again last night and it held together much better the second time round. Definitely one of my top few movies of the year and hopefully destined to be a classic.

Logged

Some people have a fear of snakes. That was a somewhat rational fear. And you could do something about it at least. Stay away from long grass and nature documentaries. Easy. Others have a fear of heights. That was manageable too. Avoid tall ladders. But how do you cope when your fear is something you can’t avoid? That you have no hope of staying away from? Being afraid of the sky, where are you going to go?

to me aviator said much more about his love of film and filmmaking. it showed it was a passion. a compulsion. hugo shows it's a diversion.

My thoughts exactly. Perhaps that's why Hugo has been so embraced by those who are not "movie people." They don't understand movies being anything more than a diversion. Also, that Hugo tells and tells loudly, where The Aviator shows. It's a more accessible film. Not that The Aviator is really inaccessible. I don't know if this is true of most people, but my non-cinephile friends find The Aviator really boring and/or stupid. The ones who have seen Hugo all liked it a lot.

The Aviator was a disaster for me. It managed to be excessive and boring at the same time. DiCaprio's performance annoyed me to no end... "Hey, I'm an actor acting! Look at all my fascinating actorly ticks! Are you prepared for my descent into madness? Check out this awesome accent and all my interesting mannerisms, which cause me to BECOME the character. See how many things I can fit into this deeply affecting performance? I'm basically the new Marlon Brando."

I could be misremembering why I disliked it, though, because of how instantly forgettable it was.

I wasn't a giant fan of The Aviator, either. I'm not gonna say it was a disaster, as a Scorsese film is always going to be filled with tremendous skill and creativity that will, at the very least, make for some exhilarating moments, even when the script is a big old dumb piece of dumb. But I haven't really fully liked anything that Scorsese has made since Casino... until Hugo, which I love completely.

I don't understand what the hell you guys are talking about regarding it presenting cinema as a diversion. I thought it presented cinema as a magical thing that creative people like Méliès could throw themselves into fully to move and thrill people and invite them to dream.

I'm kinda sad that nobody seems to love this movie as much as I do. I've talked to people who say they like it, but I think it's really really great. Even the people who had fond feelings about it will probably forget about it, but I won't. This is a movie that will stick with me.

i do. after multiple viewings, i still regard it as scorsese's best effort in a long time. one of the few movies of last year that made me genuinely giddy to be a film lover. i don't think it presents cinema as being simply a diversion, either. melies was working on a highly artistic level at his time. his work could never be classified with terms such as "diversion" or "escapism." especially in the way those terms are used for today's films. sure, scorsese is more upfront about his love for filmmaking here, but why is that bad? his filmmaking still has so much energy and joy. you can tell he's getting a kick out of writing his love letter to melies, and cinema itself. the film doesn't strive for subtly. scorsese wants you to get excited and enthusiastic about movies. it works for me.